Saturday, April 30, 2016

Tim Donnelly, who is running for Congress in California's 8th Congressional District, was on Constitution Radio a week ago. Immediately following that interview, co-host JASmius provided an article critiquing the Tea Party candidate, and in that article told us everything we need to know about what is wrong with the Republican Party, and why candidates like Cruz and Trump are the leaders of the pack when it comes to the process to represent the Grand Ol' Party in the 2016 General Election for President of the United States. The problem is not whether or not the people who think like JASmius are conservative. I have no doubt that JASmius, and those with like-minds, are conservative as heck. But, when it comes to strategies and tactics, they have fallen for the establishment arguments that have gotten us into the mess we are in in the first place. We compromise too much. We have been making deals with the Democrats and we get comparatively nothing back. The liberal left Democrats bargain high and get everything, and the Republicans bargain low and get nothing. . . and that kind of politics has got to stop. Candidates like Donnelly believe in standing their ground, and pushing to achieve more than a few crumbs off the legislative table. Yet, writers like JASmius accuse folks who are "Tea Party" of not understanding the legislative process, and defends the "let's get a few crumbs" method.

I have met and spent time with both Paul Cook (the incumbent), and Tim Donnelly. They are both fine gentlemen. Cook even knows a fair share about the Constitution. With the 2016 race coming up, I was under the impression that Cook may be stepping down, which was a part of the reason Donnelly was running for his seat in the first place. Perhaps it is going to be an "R" vs. "R" race. Cook's conservative rating, like most Republicans who spend more than a term or two in Washington, has been marching steadily southward. Like Congressmen named Ken Calvert, or Mitch McConnel, Cook is a good Republican. . . but that does not necessarily make him a good conservative.

As a lifer-military veteran of the United States Marine Corps, who saw combat and earned a Bronze Star and two Purple Hearts during the Vietnam War, Cook is largely conservative when it comes to Washington's way of dealing with the military, although sometimes he can be a little on the wishy-washy side when pressed by the opposition. In other words, he sometimes goes along to get along.

Cook went along with the omnibus budget bill, for one, which makes him a target for removal in the eyes of conservatives. He also voted to reauthorize the dreaded Export-Import Bank, and voted against placing any cap on any portion of the federal budget. It was that kind of establishment bologna that sent Boehner packing, and caused Eric Cantor to lose his seat in Congress. So, when it comes to the problem we have with the Republican establishment not standing up to their leftist counterparts, representatives like Cook are a part of the problem, not a part of the solution.

Enter, stage right, Tim Donnelly. Donnelly is a true conservative, and one willing to Fight Fight Fight as needed. A successful entrepreneur, Donnelly made his first mark on the political stage by being a part of the Minuteman Project in 2005. His involvement in politics led him to run for, and win, a seat in the California State Assembly (the State's version of the House of Representatives). He voted perfectly conservative, despite the pressure applied by a radically leftist legislature in Sacramento. Then, in 2014, Donnelly threw his hat into the ring for governor of California - the obvious conservative choice over left-leaning, Keynesian economic knucklehead, Neel Kashkari.

The Republican Party played its establishment game, pumping money into Kashkari, and ignoring the more conservative Donnelly, making it a "Tim against the big money establishment" race. . . and the reality is, in California it's hard enough to win as a conservative - it's even harder if the party tells you to kiss off because party leadership has no intention of assisting you.

Leftist Republican Party infiltrator Charles Munger was probably a large part of the problem. . . he usually is.

I spent time with some of the Republican Party insiders of the time, and they argued "if we are to have a chance to win, we need to go with a more moderate candidate like Kashkari." I was disgusted. The GOP leadership wasn't even willing to give the conservative a second look. . . which is why Republicans keep losing. Conservatism wins. This wishy-washy "we've gotta chase moderate voters" attitude, and "be mindful of Charles Munger's money" (blech) is costing us seats both at the State-level, and nationally. Conservatives ARE NOT THE MINORITY nationally, and I even think that if conservatives were to all vote we'd prove to be a voting majority in California, too. The problem is, conservatives never have a candidate they are willing to come out and vote for because of the ridiculous GOP Establishment notion that conservatives can't win as pure conservatives.

During the interview on the radio program, Mr. Donnelly revealed why he is the obvious conservative choice. Unlike the touchy-feely Republicans, Donnelly is willing to stand up to the leftists, and the infiltrators in the Republican Party (and reject the money of people like Charles Munger). He is much like Cruz is as Senator, willing to recognize that when it comes to the political machine, there is no difference between the parties. They are doing what they can to keep their power, despite what should (or shouldn't) be done regarding the affairs of the United States. Tim, on the Constitution Radio program verbalized his support for the House Freedom Caucus, and the great work they are doing to attempt to steer us away from continued disaster in Washington.

As Mr. Donnelly spoke during the radio program, at one point he did iterate that when it comes to the inner-workings, there is no difference between the two parties, and JASmius rolled his eyes. Somehow, Republicans like JASmius believe that business as usual should remain in place, that somehow the "hands in each other's pockets" method of legislation is the way the process is supposed to be. The legislative process is damaged. It is based on a method of buying and selling votes that the participants are convinced is necessary to run a country. Give the Devil his due, and you will be awarded with crumbs. The fact is, we are making a deal with the Devil, and it has got to stop. No more compromises. No more wacko budget deals. No more omnibus spending bills. We need People like Tim Donnelly telling the Republican Establishment, and the Democrats, that the compromising stops now.

So, while JASmius was itching to argue with Donnelly, I was smiling because someone like Tim Donnelly is exactly what we need in Congress. In fact, we need a mess-load of them. There aren't enough conservatives in legislative positions who are willing to act as if they are the opposition to the Democrats. While the establishment is kissing the rear-quarters of Democrats, we need conservatives who reject the Democrat claim that they are willing to work with Republicans, and that they are interested in coalition building. Ronald Reagan learned, after being burned by the Democrats, that the Democrats lie. They cheat. They are dishonest. I have no interest in compromising with them because we have absolutely nothing in common with them.

Fighting is what is left. Fighting them, and defeating them.

Conservatives are the majority in this country. In a base versus base battle, if the Republican were to espouse truly conservative ideals, and do so in an articulate manner, the GOP wins just about every time. The true leftists are less than 15% of the country. Most people hate government interfering in their lives. There are an awful lot of people who vote Democrat because they buy the propaganda bull, and they think life is all about government handouts - but if you talk to them only about the Constitution, and individual issues, they are actually quite conservative. The media, the Democrats, and the infiltrators have people convinced this country is making a leftward turn, that most people are leftist buffoons, and it is just not true.

I was in a conversation with a "democrat" voter the other day, set aside party politics, and simply talked Constitution. The limited government principles of the Constitution are exactly what the GOP is supposed to be about. The Democrat agreed with me on every single issue we discussed regarding the way things should function. On a couple issues the person did not necessarily agree morally, but he did when it came to "localism," and the importance of internal issues being handled by local, or State, government. Then, at the end, I told him that he was more Republican than Democrat in his answers. He argued, telling me that the Republicans want to raise taxes, and that the GOP is racist and that the Republicans creating the KKK was proof. Except, it's the GOP that wants to reduce taxes, and the KKK was created by the Democrat Party. He didn't believe me. The problem wasn't that he was not a conservative. . . it was that he is conservative, but is not informed enough to realize it.

While establishment figures are looking for allies who lean to the left, we really need to reacquaint ourselves with the allies we have who are conservative. While seeking a coalition with the enemy, the Republican Party has alienated its own base, and then wonders why they have been struggling in elections. Quit chasing alliances with the enemy, and articulate conservatism. . . it's not too late, conservatism still wins when properly presented - even in an alleged "blue" State.

So, while establishment Republicans, and those who have bought into the "we are a minority" propaganda seeks making deals with the Devil, I will take candidates like Tim Donnelly who are willing to take a stand. . . and will get results once the people who are "chasing moderates" as a tactic finally realizes it is their strategy that has been making the GOP lose.

Has folks like Donnelly made mistakes in the past? Of course. We're human. That's what we do. He said things about Kashkari that could be considered by some to be off the reservation. He forgot he had his gun with him at the airport. Fine. Let's stop condemning our own candidates while their offenses are minor compared to what Democrats do. How about so-called Republicans quit chopping conservatives off at the knees by going around and putting neon signs around their few mistakes, and forget the propaganda the liberal left throws around at our candidates, and actually decide to quit acting like leftists and instead support our own conservative candidates?

Just a thought.

It wouldn't be an uphill fight if the GOP establishment would just quit acting like an obstacle.

Unfortunately, Cook will probably win the race because the California GOP, heavily influenced by leftist money like Charles Munger's, will pump funding into Cook, and because voters are blinded by the word "incumbent." However, if people were to actually do their homework, they'd discover that Tim Donnelly is the better, more conservative, candidate.

The man accused of being the logistics chief behind the Paris terror attacks was booed by Muslim inmates after arriving in jail – because he failed to carry out his suicide bombing.

Salah Abdeslam spent his first night in Fleury-Mérogis prison on Wednesday after being extradited from Belgium. He was arrested over last November’s attacks in the French capital which claimed 130 lives.

Upon arriving behind bars, the twenty-six-year-old was whistled and jeered by [jihad]ist lags enraged by his alleged failure to detonate his suicide vest during the Paris onslaught.

Captain Ed is skeptical of the bona fides of this report, but I'm not particularly certain as to why. Islamic Fundamentalists aren't known for their self-control and self-restraint. One of their own who had a suicide bombing mission who failed to carry it out would be seen as a "weak horse" coward against whom they would have a great deal of recriminatory hostility. And so long as they couldn't get their bloodthirsty hands on him, they would do the next best thing and let him know in loud, no uncertain terms what they would do to him the first opportunity any of them had to do so.

Could a riot break out in Fleury-Mérogis prison under the right circumstances? I suppose it could. Should the French have sent him to another incarceration facility? Hard to see why. Fleury-Mérogis is presumably a designated jihadist stockade, so sending him to another one would have the same result. And I hardly think the French would want to lock up Abdeslam in a general prison with non-jihadist inmates where he could proselytize and recruit violent criminals to the cause of the Global Jihad. And it's not like they could have just beamed him into his solitary confinement cell at Fleury-Mérogis. The other Islamic Fundies knew who he was, and they were not going to give him a hero's welcome. Everything about the story seems credible to me.

And let's restore some perspective to the equation: They're all "weak horse" failures for having gotten caught by the infidels anyway, are they not? The only difference between Abdeslam and his hoosegow-mates is that he has a bit more fame and his failure was correspondingly bigger. It's like they're taunting him for being even more culturally emasculated than they are.

Sure, TrusTed is probably being tongue-in-cheek with this counter-shot. But I can so totally so this happening. It would be so Trumpy in any number of ways. First, it would be an ultimate symbol of his conquest and hostile takeover of the Republican Party to break one of the pillars of its long-term "establishment" into being his caddy, especially since it wouldn't take much breaking. Second, it might kinda-sorta help by perhaps maybe putting Ohio a little closer to being in play (not really, but work with me here). although it would be more like creating the appearance of a gesture toward that end, since Boehner has never run for Statewide office in Ohio and besides, John Kasich, by making his quid pro quo deal with Ted Cruz this week, might have made an enemy of the notorious grudge-holding Trump. Third, it would constitute the biggest taunt yet of his mindless drone fans to stick them with what may be their public enemy number one as his wingman, which they would all proclaim to be "genius" on cue, like trained seals. And, of course, it would double-dog-dare stick it to Senator Cruz to make the man who called him the devil as Trump's running mate.

As for Boehner, what would he have to lose? He's already a Trump ass-kisser, most of the party now hates him anyway, and if the ticket were to somehow win, he'd be back in Washington without any of the headaches of the Speakership, and it would doubly-stick it to whatever true conservative/Tea Partiers survived the Trump cataclysm. Plus, since a President Trump would be looking to make deals with Democrats - why would he want to deal with congressional Republican leaders, since (1) he'd already have taken over the GOP and they would, in his mind, be his loser subordinate lackeys anyway, and (2) he's a not-so-closet Democrat anyway - he could delegate the details to Boehner, who has all the direct experience at it that he doesn't, other than buying them wholesale. You could call it "Boehner's Revenge".

You'd think that this would be the sort of thing that Trump would keep under wraps until after he had the nomination clinched, just in case it did anger his base. But discretion and playing it safe are not in the man's DNA. Which is why Cruz goading him to do it is good strategy, as well as comedy gold:

Texas senator and Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz said Friday that he wondered whether former House Speaker John Boehner “was auditioning to be Donald Trump’s vice president” when Boehner praised Trump and savaged Cruz during a public appearance this week.

“Donald Trump is attempting to perpetuate one of the greatest frauds in the history of modern elections, which is he is trying to convince people that he’s some sort of outsider,” Cruz told host John Dickerson during an interview taped for Sunday’s broadcast. “Donald is the essence of the Washington insider. He has been enmeshed in the corruption in Washington.”

“One of the things that illustrated that powerfully this week was when John Boehner went out of his way to attack me, to call me the devil,” Cruz continued. “And then he praised two people. John Boehner praised Hillary Clinton, and he praised Donald Trump. He said Donald was his friend, was his golfing and texting buddy.” [emphasis added]

There again we have the Trump-Hillary dots connected, this time by the ultimate "establishmentarian" who may well be trying to become Trump's trophy veep. What do we have to do for Trumplicans and benefit-of-the-doubt-givers, draw you people a bleeping "in cahoots" map?

That's "Captain Mexico," in case you were wondering what the devil the more than a little ironic "M" on his headpiece meant. Which is kinda stupid since the blue in his costume should be green in order to make this getup more recognizable as such [UPDATE: Just looked at this pic on my much larger monitor, and it is green, isn't it? Whups, my bad]. That suggests to me that he actually made it for the couldn't-be-more-thematic-of-current-events Captain America III: Civil War debuting this coming Friday, and either didn't want to change it this close to the movie's premier or couldn't afford to change it on such short notice. Which means he should have changed his nickname to "Captain 'Merica", which is probably how the Sokovian Wanda Maximoff (Scarlett Witch) pronounces it anyway.

Captain 'Merica was part of the already emblematic leftwingnut (a more precise and accurate adjective than the indiscriminate "anti-Trump") protests that are baying and howling after Donald Trump everywhere he goes in California, a State to which he is finally, belatedly paying attention, given that (1) Ted Cruz has a massive head-start on him there and (2) the still-likelihood that that is where the GOP primaries will be settled if they are before Cleveland this July. And currently the California State Republican convention is concluding in Burlingame, near San Francisco, explaining his coiffed presence yesterday.and that of his ill-mannered "entourage".

The particulars are that to which I trust Captain Combover has grown accustomed:

Protesters — some of whom wore bandanas over their faces and carried Mexican flags — blocked off the road in front of the Hyatt Regency here, forcing the "GOP" front-runner’s motorcade to pull over along a concrete median outside the hotel’s back entrance. Trump and his entourage got out and walked into the building.

“That was not the easiest entrance I’ve ever made,” Trump said once he began speaking at the convention, adding, “it felt like I was crossing the border.”

In which direction, Donnie? Certainly not this one.

At one point before Trump arrived, about two dozen protesters tried to rush barriers near the hotel. Police officers then rushed to the building’s doors, successfully blocking the protesters from getting in. Some of the doors’ handles were handcuffed from the inside so they couldn’t be forced open.

Several physical altercations, including shoving, could be seen between protesters and police officers, who were using batons to push them back. [end quote]

This guy was deliberately trolling in order to get the inevitable physical retaliation on camera for public sympathy-generation purposes, and thus not quite the victim as which he's attempting to portray himself. In other words, he was trying to make himself the piñata.

Or, "following Trumpist precedent". Which doesn't make it any less unacceptable when the fists are flying in the other direction. In short, pro-Trump thuggery earlier in the primary campaign helped bring about leftwingnut thuggery like this, and it all needs to stop, literally, yesterday.

Besides, fisticuffs were hardly necessary for the protesters to more than adequately convey their sentiments about the object of their disapprobrious antics:

<YAWN> If only life were as simple as "Anybody who disagrees with me must be a h8ter!" Trump doesn't "hate" Mexicans - look at all the jobs he provides for them.

He does use them, though, as political props, which is why he kicked off his campaign over ten months ago by calling illegals "rapists" and "murders" before rhetorically circling back in his trademark passive/aggressive way and adding that "some" of them "I'm sure" are "good people". Which was his hook for the touchback amnesty portion of his claimed immigration platform that he, strangely, never seems to talk about publicly.

It's much the same way that he uses mindless "progressive" mobs like this one, which are almost as Pavlovianly reactionary as his own supporters, and are firmly established - for now - as the clearly more insanely violent.

No, no, no, no. Trump is not a "Nazi"; frankly, he's way too intellectually lazy to familiarize himself with all the tenets and doctrines of National Socialism, and he's way too much of a megalomaniacal narcissist to ever let himself be constrained to any label other than "Trump". "Nobody controls Trump," remember? Besides, as I keep trying to tell people, he's much more of an authoritarian fascist anyway.

Is Trump a "racist"? Not in the sense that his pursuing leftwingnut traveling circus of loony "performance artists" screech. Because, again, it is not, and could not, be as, well, "black and white" as that. As verbally incontinent as the millionaire slumlord is, he hasn't - yet, anyway - publicly used any racial slurs or uttered any sound-bitable phrases or one-liners that could be used against him in that sense. It's much more of a gray area. He doesn't call illegal aliens "wetbacks" or "spics" or "brownies," but he did, wittingly or unwittingly, suggest that most of them are drug-addicts, rapists, and criminals beyond just violating our immigration laws. It may be that he realized how that sounded as it was coming out of his piehole, which is why he did that "and I'm sure some of them are good people" tack-on. He doesn't send out white-supremacist Tweets on his Twitter feed, but he has re-tweeted the white-supremacist Tweets of his "alt-right" followers. Does that make him a white supremacist himself? Or simply an insecure megalomaniacal narcissist who doesn't want to lose a single vote, no matter how disreputable the source, and still confuses honor, morality, and human decency with "political correctness"?

Nuances within nuances, my friends.

If I were to characterize Trump on this question, I would cast him as a richer, better-dressed, nominally more urbane, twenty-first century version of Archie Bunker.

Both were/are from Queens, New York. Both were brought up with culturally-ingrained but non-militant, harmless prejudices. Both were/are too ignorant to realize how they sound at times and lacking the self-control to accordingly regulate their public speech and the inclination to mitigate said ignorance and exercise more verbal self-discipline (i.e. what Trump mis-identifies as "political correctness"). And both were/are, of course, wildly unfit for and unworthy of the presidency of the United States.

Plus, of course, both had/have an innate tendency to piss off hyper-triggerable leftwingnuts.

So, yes, the options are all bad — in the short term. But broaden your view beyond the race against Hillary, and the choice becomes easier: Will you sacrifice your integrity, your moral fiber, and your intellect for the sake of a single election cycle? A person who spends the next several months defending the indefensible, trying to make sense of the senseless, and excusing the inexcusable stands to do permanent damage to his reputation and the reputation of the movement he represents....

But there is also moral capital, and it’s far more fragile than its political counterpart. Once it’s squandered, even a lifetime of good works is often not enough to rebuild moral authority. God forgives the repentant, surely, but it is still often prudent for people not to trust them. And who will trust the moral judgment of those who ultimately choose to devote weeks and months of their lives to making an aggressively ignorant serial liar the leader of the free world? Trump is not the “best of bad options”; he is a cataclysm. If he defeats Hillary Clinton, his presidency will fail, and Republicans will suffer for a generation. If he loses, there’s a good chance he’ll turn the GOP into a shadow of its former self, a party reduced to holding only its safest seats and maintaining whatever political influence it still has through identity politics and clever gerrymandering.

The first step is to back Ted Cruz to the bitter end. Of course he’s not a perfect vehicle for the conservative movement; in many ways his own rhetoric has contributed to the present crisis. But there is a quantum difference between an informed, committed, and passionate conservative — whatever his faults — and a deceitful, Machiavellian liberal. Cruz is down to his Hail Mary pass, and conservatives should do all they can to help him succeed.

And if he fails, we should continue to clearly and consistently articulate our core convictions — and to reiterate as loudly and as often as possible all the reasons that both candidates will fail the American people. Neither Trumpism nor [Mrs.] Clinton’s unprincipled progressivism will do anything except exacerbate America’s structural divisions, long-term security challenges, and looming fiscal crises. Partnering with either candidate is like boarding the Titanic despite knowing it will sink. [emphases added]

Think of that fall campaign as a triangle. In one corner is Hillary Clinton and the far Left. In another corner is Donald Trump and his faux "populist", réal nihilist, authoritarian nationalist ("Make America great again") cult; and in the third corner is what's left of the Constitutional conservative movement, left without a candidate but standing on its principles - like a lot of ex-Tea Partiers-cum-Trumplicans used to before they gave into anger and despair and quit.

Yes, #NeverTrumpers are "anti-Trump", just as we are "anti-Hillary". But our opposition to both is for the real, and right, reasons.

Because sometimes, the enemy of my enemy...is my enemy as well.

UPDATE: Yep, the lefties are definitely more violent. From late last night:

Let’s state this as plainly as possible: Nothing Trump has done justifies a violent response. Nothing. Yet the more the media whitewashes this violence and applies its typical double standard to left-wing thugs, the more the violence will escalate.

Clearly the media sympathizes with these Mexican flag-waving crowds in much the same way that it sympathized with the rioters at Ferguson and Baltimore. But when you excuse political violence, you tend to get more of it. We know leftist radicals aren’t shy about taking so-called “direct action” to intimidate opponents. We also know that at least some Trump supporters are spoiling for a fight. Trump himself has been spoiling for a fight. We risk the worst political violence in a generation. Am I wrong to believe that some in the media are thrilled at the prospect — so long as the Left is leading the charge? [emphases added]

“The First Amendment protects everyone’s right to speak. But you don’t have a right to threaten violence, you don’t have a right to shout down others, and these protesters appear to be trying to use violence and threats. These are the strategies of MoveOn.org, of the left-wing agitators, who try to silence a voice they don’t like. If you disagree with a particular voice, the way to deal with it is with civil discourse, with respectful discourse. You know, when I have protesters that’s how I deal with the protesters. Not inciting violence, not shouting people down, but engaging in civil discourse. And I think – to the extent these protesters are crossing the line to violence, and I haven’t seen much of the coverage today but my understanding is things have gotten pretty ugly out there – uh that is not appropriate, that is not acceptable to threaten violence as the protesters are doing. And they are entitled to express their own views but not in a way that is disruptive and muzzles others.”

...

Fair Use

~FAIR USE~ Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.

This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material available in my efforts to advance understanding of political, human rights, economic, democracy, and social justice issues, etc. I believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research, educational, or satirical purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site/blog for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

However, if you still believe your copyright has been violated, we accept notifications of alleged copyright violations in accordance with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Note that if you materially misrepresent a claim of copyright infringement you will be liable for damages (including costsand attorney fees). We require the following information in order to respond to your request: Describe in detail the copyrighted work that you believe has been infringed upon (for example, “The copyrighted work is the code that appearson http://www.example.com/thecode.html") Identify the material that you claim is infringing the copyrighted work listed in #1. Include relevant URL’s that will allow us to identify the work. Your address, telephone number,and email address. Include the following statement “I have a good faith belief that use of the copyrighted materials described above as allegedly infringing is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law.” Include thefollowing statement “I swear, under penalty of perjury, that the information in the notification is accurate and that I am the copyright owner or am authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.” Sign the notification, type your full name, sign it electronicallyif submitted via email. Send the notification to douglasvgibbs@yahoo.com. Please place in the subject line Political Pistachio Copyright Infringement.

You can also Email me to bitch and complain if you so desire, as well. In the event that you are offended by my site please advise me of the offensive material by Email, and I will promptly print the Email, and then place it in my shredder to serve as kindling for my fireplace.